Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baldeva Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:36346]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14877/2025
1. Baldeva Ram S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 3, 1 Chd, Chhatargarh, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
2. Ram Karan S/o Shri Padmaram, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 10, Kahbariyana, Tehsil Jayal,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Shanti W/o Late Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of Kotra, Jijoth, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Laxman Ram S/o Shri Dayala Ram, Aged About 63 Years,
Resident Of Mandi 465 Rd, 1 Dlsm Damolai, Tehsil
Chhatargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhola Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of 38, Bhanbiyo Ka Vas, Khokhariya, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
6. Smt. Panchudi Devi W/o Late Shri Surjaram, Aged About
60 Years, Resident Of Chak 1 Km, 3 Rjd, Tehsil
Chhatargarh, Sansardesar, Mahadevwali, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
7. Bhaira Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 68 Years,
Resident Of Shobhoniyon Ki Dhani, Rewali, Harkhali,
Barmer, Rajasthan.
8. Banshi Ram S/o Shri Gunesh Ram, Aged About 61 Years,
Resident Of Bhaduo Ki Dhani, Village Ashapur, Tigra,
Kheri Salwa, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Smt. Man Kanwar W/o Late Shri Gordhan Singh, Aged
About 64 Years, Resident Of Chhatargarh, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
10. Tara Singh S/o Shri Indra Singh, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of Chhatargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
11. Chhota Ram S/o Shri Kojaram, Aged About 54 Years,
Resident Of Naiyo Ki Dhani, Artiya Kalla, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
12. Satyanarayan S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 58 Years,
Resident Of Peendiya, Ubasi, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur,
Rajasthan
13. Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Sadul Singh, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of Naye Karni Mata Mandir Ke Piche Wali
Gali, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
14. Sohan Ram S/o Shri Gopa Ram, Aged About 63 Years,
Resident Of Tado Ka Bass, Khangata, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
15. Balu Ram S/o Shri Laluram, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Bheemdiya Was, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:55:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36346] (2 of 4) [CW-14877/2025]
16. Balu Ram S/o Shri Hajari Ram, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Gorana, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
17. Ruparam S/o Shri Aasuram, Aged About 67 Years,
Resident Of Village Rajaldesar, District Churu (Raj.).
18. Chanda Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of Village Rajaldesar, District Churu
(Raj.).
19. Ratanlal S/o Shri Lekha Ram Soni, Aged About 71 Years,
Resident Of Village Chhatargarh, Bikaner (Raj.).
20. Prabhu Singh S/o Shri Bishal Singh, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Chhatargarh, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Engineer, Command Area Development,
Bikaner.
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (North),
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit with
Mr. Hardik Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in
question rests covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this
Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016;
Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(decided on 05.12.2022) & other connected matters.
[2025:RJ-JD:36346] (3 of 4) [CW-14877/2025]
2. In Harphool Singh (supra), the Court observed and held as
under:
"Keeping into consideration the above observation
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear
opinion that the present matters do fall within the
parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
This is a specific case wherein keeping into
consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely
ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination
between the employees appointed by the same
authorities, in the same manner, wherein the eligibility
criteria was also the same and duties are also identical
in all the aspects.
So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is
concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were
never pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the
said documents placed on record. Therefore, the same
could not have been refuted or controverted by the
petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court is of the specific
view that the clarification dated 20.05.2016 cannot
beheld to be valid as the same specifically
discriminates between two set of employees of the
same parent department.
In view of the above observations, the present
writ petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities
are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection
grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of
Work Supervisor Gr.I on the same terms, as granted to
the Mate of the IGNP Department. The essential orders
be passed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the present order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that
principle issue seems to be covered by the judgment in the case of
Harphool Singh (supra) but unless the competent authority
peruses the record, nothing can be said with certitude.
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
of on the same terms and directions as passed in Harphool Singh
[2025:RJ-JD:36346] (4 of 4) [CW-14877/2025]
(supra). However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take a
decision after examining the record. If the petitioners are not held
entitled in terms of Harphool Singh (supra), the respondent
authority shall be under an obligation to pass a speaking order.
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
49-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
